Friday, October 10, 2008

Ford vs. Chevy, Coke vs. Pepsi, Left vs. Right...What side are YOU on?

Upon coming to a more Libertarian/Constitutional view of government I believe I have been afforded a bit of objectivity I previously did not have in looking at the current political camps. Being a Constitutionalist I am an outsider to the rhetoric of the two parties, so I am beginning to see the spin a bit more clearly whereas in times past I wouldn't have viewed it as spin at all.

It astounds me to no end each time I tune in to talk radio on my commutes how, no matter what the issue, no matter what the facts are, it is somehow the Democrats who are at fault. It always comes back to the fight between the two parties, that explains the bail out, the mortgage crises, and the failures in Iraq.

If Sarah Palin in an interview when asked what news papers she reads and consequently can't name a single one, it is because the liberals are being biased. It always comes back to this paradigm, no matter what the issue. It is the wild joker.

In talking about election fraud the radio hosts go on and on about how the Democrats love to rig elections and if a Republican ever attempted such a dastardly stunt he would fry. I find such talk laughable considering the question marks over the integrity of out two previous presidential elections both going to Bush. One University of Florida student learned at the end of a taser the price for publicly raising this issue to John Kerry.

Try to see the left vs. right split as on par with the fights which I saw the "hicks" at my high school would get into over whether Ford trucks were better than Chevy. They actually formed two packs of rival gangs sporting opposing T-shirts shouting insults at each others vehicles. This all seemed rather ridiculous to me as an outside observer because they were the same trucks, one just had a "Ford" logo the other "Chevy".

Another comparable analogy would be the difference between Coke and Pepsi. There is indeed a difference, one is in a blue can the other red. The tastes are slightly different as well, but when you get down to it they are both cola.

Now think about this, you are at a summer party and there is an ice chest equally full of Coke cans, Pepsi cans and Walgreen's "Cola" cans, which do you think is most likely to run out first? Why?

Transitioning from cars and soda, the point I want to get at is that what the whole left right paradigm is intended to do is to cancel or nullify any grassroots movement and absorb people into the fake fight. The two party mentality is clearly ingrained in our political speak...we speak of alternative parties as "third party" or we toss out shallow cliches such as "Ya gatta vote fer the leser of two evils."

All such phrases presuppose Democrat and Republican hegemonic dominance.

So, if people don't like the way things are going, like the war for example, well then we will vote Democrat because a Republican started it. Yet, the Democrats vote to continue to war. Or, say we want abortions to stop, so we vote Republican, yet the Republicans choose to not vote on legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade through Congress.

It's a false choice.

This becomes more clear with the banker bail out scam. The bailout scam is the greatest step toward socialism in the history of the United States since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax in 1913. This bill however had the current President and both of the establishment party presidential candidates as supporters. In the meantime the overwhelming majority of the public did not want this bill passed.

Every now and then we see the two establishment banker and corporate parties collude and pass the most fascist pieces of legislation. These are the moments the mask comes off and the two parties are exposed for what they are, henchmen or hench-women for an elite.

There are a few exceptions like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to name a couple.

Upon his inauguration Bill Clinton named one individual as being instrumental in shaping him and setting him on course to be president, his name was professor Carrol Quigley. Carrol Quigley claimed to have had a degree of inside knowledge as to who this elite were and felt that they should be public (Quigly had no objection to their ruling).

In his book "Tragedy and Hope" Quigley spoke of the two party system as a cleverly crafted paradigm of this elite, Quigley writes:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." (T & H p.1247-1248)

Simply put the left v. right paradigm is a false dichotomy, as there is no real choice, either way the elite get their man in.

So, with that said, it is the job of the talk radio jocks, the Bill Orielly's, the Sean Hannity's, the Bill Maher's and Chris Matthews' of the world to fight and yell and scream and get the public to believe there is a difference and by so doing prop up the illusion of choice. That is their job.

Here's a video with visual graphics that explains how the false left v. right paradigm works:


natamllc said...

On the other hand Bobby, God is still Sovereign so whatever the outcome of the coming election the more we put ourselves in "His" harms way and suffer for the cause of Christ, the better our chances are of changing things in such a way that it forces the devil's hand.

On the hand of Scripture then, we should learn to count the way God lays out counting and be prepared to defend the Faith once delivered to the Saints in our day and time. It is our generation that weighs in the balance and those that follow us as in my children and yours:::>

Dan 9:23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.
Dan 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Dan 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
Dan 9:27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

The hands that rock the cradle indeed rule the world. And Christ indeed rules the rulers of the world seeing He is the ruler of the kings of the earth!

As believers, we have been "reduced" to play the field with the "Wisdom of God" guiding us like Paul the Apostle played the Sadducees against the Pharisees about the "Resurrection" or the philosophers on Mars' Hill in quoting and noting their poets.

Indeed, in the mass and sea of humanity, Biblical Christianity needs to rise up and reign in this life in the Life of Jesus Christ no matter who rules a nation on earth. God rules all the hearts from Heaven!

As for voting. If we, by voting a political agenda into a position to select the next judge to be confirmed to the Supreme Court that causes a vote on Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, we will have advanced the cause of Life.

In any event, all politics is local and we ought to actively engage our local mayors with His Truth and the governing boards of counties and then our district Assembly and Senate men and women at the State level and then attack our national representatives, both Houses, appropriately.

At the end of the day, and I cheated, as in, I read the end of the matter, Christ and His Church win! The devils and those whose name is not found written in the book of Life, lose.

Richard Dawkins said...

Hello Bob,

Your analysis of the ostensible calibration of contemporary politics in the US is reasoned, and interesting. However, I would contend that it was not a matter of conventionally-articulated differentials of "left" and "right" political leanings, but rather between shades of a pronounced authoritarian strand of the right, combining elements of social conservatism with an idealistic, interventionist foreign policy (neo-conservatism, at odds with paleo-conservatism), and a centrist ideology still positing notions of individual responsibility, and an emphasis on achieving social cohesion through strong family values, however with a distinctly more liberal position on social issues.

Of course it is true that when discussing what is meant by the idea of "left" and "right" politics, there can be vastly differing interpretations from country to country, and from community to community, of what precisely these symbolisms entail. For instance, it has been noticeable within the rhetoric spoken by a number of US commentators and polemicists, that there is a idea amongst some that the Federal governments bail-out of several American investment banks was an act of socialism. This is an idea of such ludicrous fatuity that it is hardly worth dwelling upon, however it represents a clear example of the use of language in the media to make associations between traditionally "left" conceptual positions and catastrophic situations. The bail-out of that utterly-delinquent of industries, the banking sector, amounted to a socialisation of private profiteers, without any shade of suggestion that the tax-payers would benefit from the profligate greed of the banker's limitless capacity for risk-taking.

The simple fact is that I agree with the right-wing narrative that individuals are in most cases rationally in the sense that they tend towards self-interest, and protecting their families, and it is for this reason that providing the banking sector with unfettered, unregulated powers is tantamount to craving the implosion of the economic structure itself. The writing of Marx has been much-maligned due to the 20th century history and its manifestations of intepretation within coutries that adopted elements of the ideology, however I would encourage anyone who dismisses it in its entirety to either read or re-read Das Kapital, as it has much to contribute to current debates, although must be considered contextually within the epoch of the time it was written.

I am currently working within the banking industry, and am a qualified financial advisor and so my views are made with a keen understanding of the nature of the industry, and the nature of the lack of regulatory restraints that have been allowed the current status-quo to develop.

Bob said...

Michael, on the soveriegnty of God issue, John Piper put our current economic situation rather simply, he stated, "Well, maybe prosperity isn't the best thing for America right now...".

It is so upside down from our culture's way of viewing prosperity as always good. Likewise, perhaps it is best that we continue down the path of horrible leaders, all is in God's hands.


Good to hear from you again and your dense prose. You comment on the bailout:

"This is an idea of such ludicrous fatuity that it is hardly worth dwelling upon, however it represents a clear example of the use of language in the media to make associations between traditionally "left" conceptual positions and catastrophic situations. The bail-out of that utterly-delinquent of industries, the banking sector, amounted to a socialisation of private profiteers, without any shade of suggestion that the tax-payers would benefit from the profligate greed of the banker's limitless capacity for risk-taking."

I agree and would state it harsher, it isn't even socialism it is outright ROBBERY. The executives are recieving bonus' with the money right now.

Thanks a lot for your comments Richard.

Lindsay said...

Hey, Bob. This was a really good post, I wish I'd seen it before the election. I'm still going to put some of it on my blog with a link to you here.